Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

United States with Capitalism

Posted Sep 23, '13 at 1:01pm

KnightDeclan

KnightDeclan

487 posts

If you're referring to the military, they're protecting your country.

No they're not, they're starting the trouble.

Because if you were to be an outsider, you'd be living like cavemen. You're given a choice to be safe with the rest or be hated without the rest.

They didn't start this country, nor did I, so we should share the ruling of it.

 

Posted Sep 23, '13 at 1:02pm

KnightDeclan

KnightDeclan

487 posts

And what Maverick said about the mortician, he is already a private business, not being funded by the state.

 

Posted Sep 23, '13 at 1:12pm

EmperorPalpatine

EmperorPalpatine

4,977 posts

No they're not, they're starting the trouble.

They're still a deterrent for opposing nations.

 

Posted Sep 23, '13 at 2:10pm

Nurvana

Nurvana

2,179 posts

They didn't start this country, nor did I, so we should share the ruling of it.

Are you familiar with the Social Contract?

Besides, I fail to see how this has anything to do with a debate on Capitalism. Are you trying to say a nation without leadership will produce a functioning capitalistic economy?

 

Posted Sep 23, '13 at 3:21pm

Maverick4

Maverick4

3,707 posts

I'll suggest you re-read my post, since you seemed to have completely missed the point.

 

Posted Sep 23, '13 at 5:03pm

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,673 posts

Knight

I seriously doubt supply would be a problem. There -might- be a slightly longer waiting period because, as you mentioned, people will go for less dire reasons, but overall I'd imagine there's little to no difference in average wait time. Hell, even in privatized care, you have to wait. The whole argument that socialized care will take longer and thus have people die from waiting is an exaggeration and ignoring that the exact same thing can happen in the system we have in the USA.

To add to this with socialized health care you at least eliminate the situation of simply not receiving care at all due to lack of funds for it. It would seem the choices are either have a waiting list where you will eventually receive care or have a system where a possibly great number of people will receive insufficient to no care.

I don't really see why a combination of the two couldn't be possible. for either system to have to take on everyone can lead to poor care. Instead we could have both systems supplementing each other.

 

Posted Sep 23, '13 at 7:07pm

NoNameC68

NoNameC68

5,069 posts

Knight

In a privatized system, the people who benefit most are the hospital owners, doctors, and insurance companies. Healthcare is a product that everyone is going to consume at one point or another, thus the people -must- buy it or suffer with their ailments. You might argue that competition will drive down prices, but it's such a specialized field that requires enormously expensive assets (doctor's education, the facilities and equipment) that the price will be much higher than the average person can afford, which is why health insurance is such a huge thing to have. However, these insurance companies know that, and charge you up the wall for it, because your other option is paying for it entirely yourself and then you're screwed.

If prices are kept artificially slow, everyone who works in the medical field makes less. If they make less, they're less likely to be available. If the government pays for these people to go to college or helps them with their paychecks, then you take money from the people or you create inflation.

Problem not solved.

Furthermore, competition can exist in he medical field. Prices might remain higher than you would want them to be, but they would be affordable, unless we're talking about medical treatments that are costly due to limited supply (in which case you run out - problem not solved).

Do you know why medical prices are so high? Third party payers.

When an insurance company says, "we'll cover the costs", then you're not going to think twice about pricing when you go to the doctor to have an operation performed. You're going to get whatever is most convenient, or whatever is best quality - even if you don't need either one.

Imagine if car insurance companies offered to pay for people's gasoline. Nobody would fill their car half way up as a means of saving money, they would all fill their cars up completely. People aren't going to start driving less or more conservatively, they're going to waste gas. Why? Because their insurance companies are paying for the gas! But because we have to pay for gasoline ourselves, we are more conservative with what we do.

Guess what, this keeps gas prices cheaper than they would be otherwise.

The same would be true if we didn't have reckless insurance companies. It would be alright if insurance companies only offered to pay for specific ailments rather than every small and cheap medical expense under the sun. Why go for cheaper contraceptives if your insurance company is willing to dish out hundred dollar operations? Now people have to pay more money to insurance companies to compensate, plus there's less supply for higher cost contraceptives - which makes THOSE prices go up!

The problem with insurance companies is that people don't really care about who their health care provider is. Most people obtain their insurance through where they work. Because of this, people don't shop around for insurance that fits them. They don't worry about saving money, because they're employers are paying.

I would say that everyone has the right to be treated, for whatever their illness is.

Provided healthcare is not a right, it's an entitlement.

I disagree. I believe everyone should, ultimately, be responsible for their own bodies. The idea of me deserving other people's property because my body might have cancer or some other ailment is an idea I will never hold - because I am no man's master. If I have cancer, I'm responsible. People can help me, and I'll accept it, but it's wrong for me to expect others to give their money to me against their own will. I'd rather be dead than hold such mentality. I'm not saying people should be forced to think in such a way, but I do believe we should enforce property rights and treat the human body as one's own property - that is to say, you're responsible for what happens to it even if it's beyond you control.

In a capitalistic system, the middle/lower class.

These people are hurt the most, but they aren't hurt very bad. In a capitalist system, one that's not corrupt with 3rd party providers, prices go down and treatment becomes more affordable for everyone.

In a socialist system, only those who are not wealthy enough to go to a private system but wealthy enough that they could have afforded better care in a non-socialized system. However, that only applies if the socialized system cannot treat them adequately for some reason.

Which, I have heard, is often the case.

Another issue is that these people also don't have to pay for their own maintenance. therefore the tax payers have to pay for them. Economically, everyone pays more. Since socialized care is 3rd party and doesn't allow for competition, everyone pays EVEN MORE. And since the only thing preventing prices from rising are price controls, inflation increases EVEN MORE. The fact private health care systems are less able to compete, they suffer even more. They also have to compete with a government that's allowed to go into debt.

The money is getting paid one way or another.

In a capitalist system, people have to pay for themselves or obtain health insurance that fits their needs.

In a socialist system, everyone pays for each other.

To simplify the system to "the money has to come from somewhere, let's pick the one in which everyone is treated", ignores the fact that people are held accountable for the actions of others rather than themselves. It also ignores price incentives.

Overall expenditures mean that the rich pay more, while the lower/middle class pays less.

The rich might pay more than the middle or lower class, but the middle or lower class are still forced to pay an incredibly redicilous amount in taxes. There's this idea that "as long as the rich pays more, who cares?" But, I disagree with this mentality. The rich paying more doesn't mean the middle class or poor are paying any less.

When you get a job where your income is low and you pay for everything yourself (from housing to school), you'll learn that taxation is not the solution, since you're either forced to pay for people you don't care for (and shouldn't be forced to care for), or you have to become dependent on the state and get financial help.

We should find solutions in which people try to avoid becoming dependent on the state, but we're constantly seeking ways in which it's easier to do.

"I seriously doubt supply would be a problem. There -might- be a slightly longer waiting period because, as you mentioned, people will go for less dire reasons, but overall I'd imagine there's little to no difference in average wait time. Hell, even in privatized care, you have to wait. The whole argument that socialized care will take longer and thus have people die from waiting is an exaggeration and ignoring that the exact same thing can happen in the system we have in the USA."

Death from waiting? Probably not. However, people shouldn't have to let their wounds fester or their ailments get worse because doctors are swamped working on people who don't consider the seriousness (or lack of seriousness) of their wounds.

To add to this with socialized health care you at least eliminate the situation of simply not receiving care at all due to lack of funds for it.

People aren't denied treatment in privatized hospitals. They might have to settle for less expensive treatments, but the treatments get the job done. And whatever bill exists doesn't have to be paid all at once. Some medical bills can be incredibly high for incredibly severe illnesses. These are uncommon. That's not to say there wouldn't be problems, but I'd rather seek solutions through innovation - finding better marketing methods and investing in better technology. Depending on the state only hampers healthcare advancement.

I don't really see why a combination of the two couldn't be possible.

Privatization is only efficient when their competition have to abide by the same rules. Two private businesses that compete will have to find new ways to save money and provide better care. Efficiency is key.

When you have a private business and a government business, the government funded business is allowed to go into debt, which makes them far less efficient. Not only do tax payers pay more, but the private business, which may have been more efficient, will likely go under due to the fact that they can't compete with an entity that doesn't have to stay out of debt or an entity that makes it money through taxes whereas the private entity must rely on being self efficient.

 

Posted Sep 23, '13 at 9:49pm

Kasic

Kasic

5,572 posts

If prices are kept artificially slow, everyone who works in the medical field makes less.

In a system where all prices are paid beforehand with a tax, everyone working in the medical field is already compensated.

If the government pays for these people to go to college or helps them with their paychecks, then you take money from the people or you create inflation.

Who said anything about the government paying for them to go to college, or padding their paychecks? They would be working -for- the government.

When an insurance company says, "we'll cover the costs", then you're not going to think twice about pricing when you go to the doctor to have an operation performed. You're going to get whatever is most convenient, or whatever is best quality - even if you don't need either one.

And do you know why that happens? Because doctors/hospitals know the insurance companies will be paying that and recommend a procedure that wasn't necessary. It's how they make their money. They can jack the price up because of that, which in turn causes the insurance companies to demand more from their customers. You've got the cycle reversed.

Imagine if car insurance companies offered to pay for people's gasoline. Nobody would fill their car half way up as a means of saving money, they would all fill their cars up completely. People aren't going to start driving less or more conservatively, they're going to waste gas. Why? Because their insurance companies are paying for the gas! But because we have to pay for gasoline ourselves, we are more conservative with what we do.

Imagine if car insurance companies allotted you a specific number of gallons per week based on your car's mileage that came included with the plan. People would start driving more conservatively to stay within that limit, or conversely make better decisions on what car to purchase for their needs. They wouldn't waste gas, because their paid-for amount in the insurance plan wouldn't cover them afterwards.

The entire example is really a red herring, though, and an exercise in futility. You can throw up hypotheticals fitting what you want them to be all you want.

The problem with insurance companies is that people don't really care about who their health care provider is. Most people obtain their insurance through where they work. Because of this, people don't shop around for insurance that fits them. They don't worry about saving money, because they're employers are paying.

The problem with this system is that people don't really have a choice about who their health care provider is. Most people obtain their health insurance through their work, because they can't otherwise. Because of this, people are at the mercy of their employers choice in insurance company, and at the insurance companies wanting to profit. The company might not give their employees an adequate plan, because they have to pay for it.

I disagree. I believe everyone should, ultimately, be responsible for their own bodies. The idea of me deserving other people's property because my body might have cancer or some other ailment is an idea I will never hold - because I am no man's master.

This is complete tripe. No one said anything about you deserving other people's property. This is about medical personnel who are trained to treat people and are being paid to do so by the state, who in turn receive money from everyone through taxes so that everyone who needs help can get it when needed. You're paying for it yourself, by paying your contribution. It's the exact same thing as roads, public schooling, and police. You don't use those all the time. Or are you going to tell me you want to include wire transactions to the 911 department before they send a police car when your house is being robbed, or if you're having a heart attack and need an ambulance?

"This is 911. What's your emergency and credit card number? Your house is on fire and you don't have the card with you? *end call.*"

If I have cancer, I'm responsible.

Like ****ing hell it is. Blame the victim, sure. It's their fault they got sick and might die. Even though it's not something they could have controlled or prevented. But then, they don't deserve to live if they don't have the money to pay for the operation, huh.

you're responsible for what happens to it even if it's beyond you control.

This is insanity. Your responsible for things you're not even responsible for.

In a capitalist system, one that's not corrupt with 3rd party providers, prices go down and treatment becomes more affordable for everyone.

No, the problem with the capitalist system is that medical treatment is a good you have to buy. There's no control at all, because they've got a monopoly on your health. They know you need treatment, and you either have to pay it or suffer. It's literally extortion.

The rich might pay more than the middle or lower class, but the middle or lower class are still forced to pay an incredibly redicilous amount in taxes. There's this idea that "as long as the rich pays more, who cares?" But, I disagree with this mentality. The rich paying more doesn't mean the middle class or poor are paying any less.

When you get a job where your income is low and you pay for everything yourself (from housing to school), you'll learn that taxation is not the solution, since you're either forced to pay for people you don't care for (and shouldn't be forced to care for), or you have to become dependent on the state and get financial help.

Except you're paying a percentage of your income, not a set amount. And I seriously question whether you're paying more in the end. Even if your healthcare is provided by an employer, that employer is paying for it. Which means less of a paycheck for you. If they weren't paying for it and you had more of a paycheck, that "Extra" money would go the healthcare fund. The difference between the two is, you don't have to have an employer that provides health insurance to have affordable healthcare.

Which, I have heard, is often the case.

Waiting happens in both systems. Get me some data on how long those waiting periods are in socialized healthcare systems if you think it's that huge a problem that it entirely invalidates the entire concept.

Another issue is that these people also don't have to pay for their own maintenance. therefore the tax payers have to pay for them. Economically, everyone pays more. Since socialized care is 3rd party and doesn't allow for competition, everyone pays EVEN MORE. And since the only thing preventing prices from rising are price controls, inflation increases EVEN MORE. The fact private health care systems are less able to compete, they suffer even more. They also have to compete with a government that's allowed to go into debt.

Who said anything about there being competition in our system we have now? You go to the hospital that's closest which can treat you, using the health insurance provided by your employer which you did not choose. You're at their mercy. Plan doesn't cover what you're ill with? GF, financial life.

I would much rather be "paying more" so that everyone can get the treatment they need when they need it. Even if these government funded hospitals are allowed to go into debt, all that shows is that the demand was obviously higher than previously thought.

In a capitalist system, people have to pay for themselves or obtain health insurance that fits their needs.

In a socialist system, everyone pays for each other.

In a capitalist system, people who do not have the luxury of choice get boned. And since that's the majority of the population, we've got a problem.

In a socialist system, everyone pays their own contribution based on what they can afford. If they start doing better, they pay a little more alongside that. If they start doing worse, they pay less.

Now what I have to ask you is, what do you find so evil about people paying what they can for necessary goods that are life altering and largely related to overall happiness, productivity, and welfare of the entire nation and economy?

Death from waiting? Probably not. However, people shouldn't have to let their wounds fester or their ailments get worse because doctors are swamped working on people who don't consider the seriousness (or lack of seriousness) of their wounds.

If people were educated on what merited going to the hospital or not, that wouldn't be a problem.

And is it really any different right now? People have their health insurance paid by their employers. Why wouldn't they go if they thought something might be wrong? It's a part of their benefits.

People aren't denied treatment in privatized hospitals. They might have to settle for less expensive treatments, but the treatments get the job done.

So why do you assume that people would receive way over the top treatments in a socialized system? There's no reason people need to be receiving -better- healthcare than they need. If you've got a broken arm and need a cast, they aren't going to run a toxicology test, MRI, and whatever other things just because. They'd do exactly what a privatized hospital would do, X-ray it and then set it. No additional costs, as it's the same procedure.

but I'd rather seek solutions through innovation - finding better marketing methods and investing in better technology. Depending on the state only hampers healthcare advancement.

It doesn't work that way. Take a look at our healthcare. Take a look at healthcare in the rest of the developed world. Look at the general state of things. You don't see them arguing so much about healthcare.

When you have a private business and a government business, the government funded business is allowed to go into debt, which makes them far less efficient.

Who's saying no one is going to be enforcing efficiency?

It all comes down to this: our healthcare system is a market failure. We're paying higher than necessary prices because we have to. People who need treatment aren't getting it. A large amount of people are not covered at all, because their employers don't provide it.

Our system isn't this shining thing that's working. It's a pile of capitalistic ideals gone wrong that extorts money out of everyone and is creating debt. Healthcare isn't a good that people can afford on their own. They're dependent upon the insurance companies, and the insurance companies make very good use of that dependency. The hospitals know you need them, and make sure they're paid handsomely for that service you need and can't simply decide not to get. What you keep insinuating with all these paranoid assertions and implied fears already exists.

 

Posted Sep 23, '13 at 10:00pm

Maverick4

Maverick4

3,707 posts

Just floating this out there, but why not have a system similar to the way financial aid is awarded in the US with FAFSA?

The basics of FAFSA is that you are expected to pay a certain amount of money, based on your parent's income. This is then subtracted from the cost of the college, with any positive number being the theoretical amount you ought to recieve in aid.

So suppose I make 100K a year, and its calculated that I am obligated for 7500 worth of medical expenses. If I need an operation that costs 20K, then an insurance agency or governmental body could step in and lay the difference. An insurance agency would be funded by monthy payments, governmental agency by taxes.

College apps: permeating every aspect of your life because they can. D:

 

Posted Sep 23, '13 at 10:55pm

EmperorPalpatine

EmperorPalpatine

4,977 posts

For economics class I have to watch this vid about what's wrong with the current US Health Care system. It's quite interesting.

 
Reply to United States with Capitalism

You must be logged in to post a reply!